[Cite as Simonetti v. Adams-Karl Invests., L.L.C., 2014-Ohio-3701.]

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF OHIO 

TENTH APPELLATE DISTRICT 

Professional Solutions Insurance : 

Company, 

 : 

 Intervenor-Plaintiff, 

 : No. 14AP-222 

 (C.P.C. No. 11CV-2192)

Steve Simonetti et al., : 

 (REGULAR CALENDAR) 

 Plaintiffs-Appellees, : 

v. : 

 

Adams-Karl Investments, LLC et al., : 

 Defendants-Appellants. : 

 

D E C I S I O N 

Rendered on August 26, 2014 

 

Mills, Mills, Fiely & Lucas, Laura L. Mills, and Paul W. 

Vincent, for appellees. 

Duncan Law Group LLC, Brian K. Duncan, and Bryan D. 

Thomas, for appellants. 

 

APPEAL from the Franklin County Court of Common Pleas. 

BROWN, J. 

{¶ 1} Adams-Karl Investments, LLC c/o ABG Agency, Inc.; Adams, Babner, and 

Gitlitz, LLC c/o Bret A. Adams, Bret Adams, and George Karl c/o Bret Adams, 

defendants-appellants, appeal from the judgment of the Franklin County Court of 

Common Pleas in which the court denied appellants' motion for attorney fees, denied 

appellants' motion for leave to file under seal, and ordered appellants to pay attorney fees 
No. 14AP-222 2 

to the counsel of Steve Simonetti, Doug Burkhart, James Deagle, and Linchris 

Management c/o Mike Hurdzan, and Gene Simonetti, plaintiffs-appellees. 

{¶ 2} Many of the underlying facts are not relevant to the current appeal. 

Generally, in October 2010, appellees filed an action against appellants in Delaware 

County, Ohio. The action related to appellants' and appellees' investment in the Golf Club 

of Dublin. Appellants filed an answer and a counterclaim for, among other things, 

frivolous conduct. The case was transferred to Franklin County, and the trial court 

subsequently dismissed some of appellees' claims. 

{¶ 3} The court held a trial on the remaining claims. During the course of trial, 

the parties reached a settlement as to all claims. During a discussion of the settlement 

with the trial court, appellants specifically indicated that the counterclaim for frivolous 

conduct was included in the settlement. On September 13, 2013, the parties filed a 

stipulation of dismissal. 

{¶ 4} On September 20, 2013, appellants filed a complaint against the trial judge 

and the Supreme Court of Ohio in federal court. 

{¶ 5} On October 11, 2013, appellants filed a motion for attorney fees based upon 

alleged frivolous conduct by appellees' counsel. On October 16, 2013, appellees filed a 

motion for sanctions and fees, arguing that the settlement agreement settled all claims, 

including appellants' counterclaim for frivolous conduct against appellees, and the court 

had jurisdiction only to enforce the settlement. 

{¶ 6} On February 7, 2014, appellants filed a motion for leave to file under seal a 

motion seeking recusal of the trial judge and motion for stay with respect to ruling on the 

October 11, 2013 motion for attorney fees. 

{¶ 7} On February 18, 2014, the trial court issued a decision and entry in which it 

denied appellants' motion for attorney fees and motion for leave to file under seal and 

granted appellees' motion for sanctions and fees. The court ordered appellants to pay 

appellees' counsel $550 for his frivolous filing of the motion for attorney fees. Appellants 

appeal the judgment of the trial court, asserting the following assignment of error: 

JUDGE SHEWARD FAILED TO DISQUALIFY HIMSELF 

FROM THIS PROCEEDING AS MANDATED BY THE OHIO 

CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT RULE 2.11, REQUIRING 

DISMISSAL IN CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH A JUDGE 

HAS A PERSONAL BIAS OR PREJUDICE CONCERNING A 
No. 14AP-222 3 

PARTY, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE UNDER OHIO CODE 

OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT RULE 1.2 REQUIRING JUDGES 

TO AVOID IMPROPRIETY OR THE APPEARANCE 

THEREOF; THEREFORE, JUDGE SHEWARD ABUSED HIS 

DISCRETION BY RULING ON SAID PROCEEDING. 

{¶ 8} Appellants argue in their sole assignment of error that the trial court erred 

when it ruled on the motions in its judgment because the trial judge should have 

disqualified himself due to the pending lawsuit appellants filed against him in federal 

court. In support, appellants cite several provisions in the Code of Judicial Conduct 

dealing with disqualification and impartiality, including Rule 2.11, which requires a judge 

to disqualify himself or herself in any proceeding in which the judge has a personal bias or 

prejudice against a party or a party's attorney. Appellants contend that the trial judge 

should have disqualified himself here because Adams had a pending lawsuit against the 

trial judge based upon Adams' allegation that the trial judge denied his procedural and 

substantive due process rights. Therefore, appellants urge that the trial court's judgment 

denying their motion for attorney fees be vacated and request that the trial judge be 

disqualified from ruling on the instant matter. 

{¶ 9} The authority to pass upon the disqualification of a judge of the court of 

common pleas is vested solely in the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Ohio or a 

designee. Beer v. Griffith, 54 Ohio St.2d 440 (1978); Kettering v. Berger, 4 Ohio App.3d 

254, 255 (2d Dist.1982); State v. Dougherty, 99 Ohio App.3d 265, 268 (3d Dist.1994). 

R.C. 2701.03 sets forth the only procedure by which a party may seek disqualification. Id.

at 269. The statute requires the party seeking disqualification to file an affidavit of 

prejudice with the Supreme Court. Id. 

{¶ 10} It is well-established that a court of appeals is without authority to render a 

decision with regard to disqualification or to void a trial court's judgment on that basis. 

Id.; State v. Ramos, 88 Ohio App.3d 394, 398 (9th Dist.1993). In the present appeal, 

appellants ask this court to find the trial judge should have disqualified himself and to 

void the trial court's judgment on the same basis, both of which we are prohibited from 

doing. Therefore, this court has no authority to pass upon these issues, and we overrule 

appellants' assignment of error. 
No. 14AP-222 4 

{¶ 11} Appellees have included in their brief a motion for sanctions, pursuant to 

App.R. 23, based upon appellants' frivolous appeal. Despite the well-established authority 

cited above, we decline to award attorney fees and costs at this time. 

{¶ 12} Accordingly, appellants' sole assignment of error is overruled, appellees' 

motion for sanctions is denied, and the judgment of the Franklin County Court of 

Common Pleas is affirmed. 

Motion denied; 

judgment affirmed. 

TYACK and LUPER SCHUSTER, JJ., concur. 

____________________